Newbit v. Inhabitants of Appleton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Assumpsit under R. S., c. 24, § 32, to recover for the support of the plaintiff’s minor grandchild, after notice and request to the overseers of Appleton to provide for the child, who had no father.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Assumpsit under R. S., c. 24, § 32, to recover for the support of the plaintiff’s minor grandchild, after notice and request to the overseers of Appleton to provide for the child, who had no father. The plaintiff testified that he was not of sufficient ability to maintain the boy, and that he notified one of the overseers of the poor of the town that they must take care of him, but they did not pay any attention to the request, and this suit was brought to recover the expenses of relief subsequently furnished. The overseer denied that any such notice or request was made to him.…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The defendants contend that the “notice and request,” required by R. S., c. 24, § 82, to enable an inhabitant to recover of a town the expenses incurred in support of a pauper, is insufficient, if made to only one member of the board of overseers. The language of the statute is, “after notice and request to the overseers.” The decision of this point depends upon the further question, whether it is the duty of one overseer, when such notice and request is made to him, to communicate it to the other overseers. A notice to one overseer may well be supposed by him, as intended as well for his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. Inhabitants of NewburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870